Sham surgery controls are mitigated trolleys

Abstract

Debate continues about the ethics of sham surgery controls. The most powerful argument for sham surgery controls is that rigorous
experiments are needed to demonstrate safety and efficacy of surgical procedures. Without such experiments, there is danger
of adopting worthless procedures in clinical practice. Opponents of sham surgery controls argue that sham surgery constitutes
unacceptable violation of the rights of research subjects. Recent philosophical discussion has used two thought experiments—the
transplant case and the trolley problem—to explore the circumstances under which individuals may be harmed to benefit a larger
group. The transplant case is felt to exemplify circumstances that forbid harming some to benefit a larger group while the
trolley problem exemplifies circumstances that permit harming some to benefit others. I argue that sham surgery controls satisfy
criteria derived from the trolley problem and are morally permissible.